Advertisement

Computational Statistics

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 409–428 | Cite as

Unsupervised learning of pharmacokinetic responses

  • Elson Tomás
  • Susana Vinga
  • Alexandra M. CarvalhoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Pharmacokinetics (PK) is a branch of pharmacology dedicated to the study of the time course of drug concentrations, from absorption to excretion from the body. PK dynamic models are often based on homogeneous, multi-compartment assumptions, which allow to identify the PK parameters and further predict the time evolution of drug concentration for a given subject. One key characteristic of these time series is their high variability among patients, which may hamper their correct stratification. In the present work, we address this variability by estimating the PK parameters and simultaneously clustering the corresponding subjects using the time series. We propose an expectation maximization algorithm that clusters subjects based on their PK drug responses, in an unsupervised way, collapsing clusters that are closer than a given threshold. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm converges fast and leads to meaningful results in synthetic and real scenarios.

Keywords

Clustering Expectation-maximization One-compartment model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Paulo Mateus for many useful inputs and valuable comments. Special thanks go to the anonymous reviewers, who significant contributed to the quality of this manuscript with their valuable and well-aimed comments. This work was supported by national funds through FCT, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under contracts LAETA (UID/EMS/50022/2013) and IT (UID/EEA/50008/2013), and by projects InteleGen (PTDC/DTP-FTO/1747/2012), PERSEIDS (PTDC/EMS-SIS/0642/2014) and internal IT project QBigData. SV acknowledges support by Program Investigador FCT (IF/00653/2012) from FCT, co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) through the Operational Program Human Potential (POPH). This work was partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 633974 (SOUND project).

References

  1. Azzimonti L, Ieva F, Paganoni AM (2013) Nonlinear nonparametric mixed-effects models for unsupervised classification. Comput Stat 28(4):1549–1570MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Beal SL, Sheiner LB (1980) The NONMEM system. Am Stat 34:118–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ (1993) NONMEM users guide. Technical report, University of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho AM, Adão P, Mateus P (2014) Hybrid learning of Bayesian multinets for binary classification. Pattern Recognit 47:3438–3450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carvalho AM, Roos T, Oliveira AL, Myllymki P (2011) Discriminative learning of Bayesian networks via factorized conditional log-likelihood. J Mach Learn Res 12:2181–2210MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidian M, Giltinan DM (2003) Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data: an overview and update. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 8:387–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayneka NL, Garg V, Jusko WJ (1993) Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 21(4):457–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delyon B, Lavielle M, Moulines E (1999) Convergence os a stochastic approximation version of the EM procedure. Ann Stat 27:94–128CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B 1:1–38MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Derendorf H, Lesko LJ, Chaikin P, Colburn WA, Lee P, Miller R, Powell R, Rhodes G, Stanski D, Venitz J (2000) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling in drug research and development. J Clin Pharmacol 40(12 Pt 2):1399–1418Google Scholar
  11. Gueorguieva I, Ogungbenro K, Graham G, Glatt S, Aarons L (2007) A program for individual and population optimal design for univariate and multivariate response pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 86(1):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhn E, Lavielle M (2005) Maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed effects models. Comput Stat Data Anal 49:1020–1038MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee J, Lee H, Jang K, Lim KS, Shin D, Yu KS (2014) Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions between cilnidipine and valsartan, in healthy volunteers. Drug Des Dev Ther 8:1781–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee PID, Amidon GL (1996) Pharmacokinetic analysis: a practical approach. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindstrom MJ, Bates DM (1988) Newton–Raphson and EM algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data. J Am Stat Assoc 84:1014–1022MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Mager DE, Wyska E, Jusko WJ (2003) Diversity of mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models. Drug Metab Dispos 31(5):510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nesterov Y (2012) Efficiency of coordinate descent methods on huge-scale optimization problems. SIAM J Optim 22:341–362MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Rissanen J (1997) Stochastic complexity in learning. J Comput Syst Sci 55:89–95MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Roden DM, George AL Jr (2002) The genetic basis of variability in drug responses. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheiner LB, Rosenberg B, Marathe VV (1977) Estimation of population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters from routine clinical data. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 5:445–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trout H, Mentré F, Panhard X, Kodjo A, Escaut L, Pernet P, Gobert JG, Vittecoq D, Knellwolf AL, Caulin C, Bergmann JF (2004) Enhanced saquinavir exposure in HIV1-infected patients with diarrhea and/or wasting syndrome. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48:538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walker G (1996) An em algorithm for non-linear random effects models. Biometrics 52:934–944MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Wei GC, Tanners MZ (1991) Applications of multiple imputation to the analysis of censored regression data. Biometrics 47:1297–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wright SJ (2015) Coordinate descent algorithms. Math Program 151:3–34MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu L (2002) A joint model for nonlinear mixed-effects models with censoring and covariates measured with error, with application to AIDS studies. J Am Stat Assoc 97:955–964CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Wu L (2004) Exact and approximate inferences for nonlinear mixed-effects models with missing covariates. J Am Stat Assoc 99:700–709MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elson Tomás
    • 1
  • Susana Vinga
    • 1
  • Alexandra M. Carvalho
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.IDMEC, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto de Telecomunicações, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations